A recent trip by North Dakota legislators to Antigua to discuss internet gambling and trade issues has been stirring up a significant amount of controversy in the state [all coverage from Say Anything can be found here]. It seemed to me that the state's media wasn't really giving Republicans a chance to explain themselves and their trip. So, in order to let those who actually went on the trip tell their side of the story, I took the initiative to contact Rep. Thoreson and ask him a few questions about the trip.

You'll find those questions, and Rep. Thoreson's answers, below.



When did you go to Antigua?

We left on Sunday, October 2. We arrived in Antigua at about 7:00 pm on Sunday evening.

When did you get back?


We returned on Thursday, October 6. We departed Antigua at around 6:00 am.

What was the intended purpose of the trip?

As this trip was being planned, we informed the government of Antigua that we wanted to explore a variety of issues that their country and our state could move forward on, not just gambling. If that would have been the only purpose of the trip, I would not have gone. So although the Internet gaming issue is the one that generated the most headlines (and was the initial reason for them contacting us), we actually spent the majority of time in Antigua discussing other issues. Specifically, they import almost all of their food. They would like to come to North Dakota to see about purchasing ag products from us. Hopefully this will occur in the next few months.

What relationships between Antigua and North Dakota were discussed?

We informed the officials that we met with that we were not there to negotiate any deals (that would be outside of any authority we as legislators have), but that we wanted to see for ourselves what benefits could come from trade, tourism, etc. between our people and theirs. Once the dialogue began, there were many issues that arose. I touched on some of them already (please see above) but some other things that were brought up were educational opportunities for their youth (Anitgua doesn't have any four-year colleges yet) and the upcoming Caribbean single-market economy (CARICOM) which would potentially open up trade for ND with a market of over 10 million persons. We learned from them about the new government that was elected just over a year ago in Antigua (ending over 20 years of rule by one family) and how they would like to become a "shining star" in the Caribbean.

What benefits for North Dakota do you see coming from these relationships?

Time will tell if our meetings were productive, but I believe that they will look to us first for any purchases of ag products. We need to bring the officials from Antigua to ND to see for themselves, as we did by going there. After that, we need to be aggressive in marketing ourselves to them. Any regulation on Internet poker would be down the road aways, but we really have some unique opportunities now.

Democrats are accusing you and your group of keeping this trip a secret. Was there an intent to do so?

Absolutely not. As I've stated, I told many people before going about the trip, and what we planned to do while there. Just because we didn't send out a bunch of press releases doesn't mean it was secret! Those pointing fingers also know that legislators (both Democrats and Republicans) travel to find out ways to help our state. It's just easy to make accusations when the destination is a Caribbean island.

Why wasn't the trip announced before your group left?

I believe in doing the work before taking the credit. We didn't know beforehand what would happen on this visit. We knew that if there was a potential for ND doing business with Antigua that we would come home and brief other state officials on what we found out. This is now going on. Interestingly, since the media decided to pick up on our visit, the overwhelming response I've received has been positive. North Dakotans like the idea of pursuing new opportunities for our state. We've sat back for too long, I believe, and we need to reach out to new markets like this. Without seeing for ourselves what's going on, however, we could open ourselves up to potential troubles (the troubled 1980s potato deal between ND and Honduras comes to mind.) I like the famous Ronald Reagan quote: "trust, but verify."

Do you regret not announcing it?

No.

The Democrats have announced a trip Cuba to discuss trade issues. What's your thought on this trip?

Ag Commissioner Roger Johnson is travelling to Cuba once again for trade. I believe that we should be selling to markets throughtout the world, so if this delegation can find a market for North Dakota products, that's good. Although I am extremely opposed to Fidel Castro, I realize that the people of Cuba need to be fed. So as much as I would like to see democracy in Cuba, that will probably not happen for a few more years. Antigua is a newly elected democracy, and I like the idea of making an effort to help countries like this succeed.

Unlike your trip to Antigua, the Democrats are paying for their trip with tax funds. Do you feel this is appropriate?

The Ag Department has money budgeted for marketing, and they've chosen to spend part of these funds for the Cuba trip. They have determined that this is a good use of taxpayer dollars, and hopefully the visit will bear fruit for North Dakota's ag producers. I am not going to criticize this decision.

Why wasn't your trip to Antigua paid for with tax funds?

As citizen legislators, the only dollars budgeted for travel are to attend meeting for organizations such as the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Council of State Governments. We don't have discretionary funds for travel. Since 2000, I've not had any trips funded at taxpayer expense. My only state-funded trip was in 1999 for two days to attend an energy workshop in Arizona.

Critics are saying that your trip is an example of why North Dakota's lobby laws need to change. Do you think they need to change? If so, how?

We can certainly look at changing the laws next session, but when you do something perfectly legal and then are accused of doing something wrong, I wonder: are those making the accusations are really interested in accountability, or just political grandstanding? If the goal is better informing the public, I'm 100% in favor of looking at changes. But if the goal is only to do harm to others to score some partisan victory, then I think our time and effort could be better spent elsewhere.